Reflecting on Rafael's posting, it seems to tend in the direction of taking repetition and predictability to be a basic kind of order, or, a requirement for any concept of order.
STAN >Folks, > >when thinking about order we should not forget that historical >changes with regard to this concept for instance the code >"kosmos/chaos" in Greek cosmology and philosophy (and religion). >Giving the primacy to the modern paradigm (natural laws etc) might >restrict inadequately the range of possibilities addressed by >different human experiences. We should also differentiate the >concept of order at different levels of reality. The concept of >reality at the social level is not identical for instance to the >concept of natural laws. We speak of "law and order" in politics and >address different kind of structures (positive law, endurement of >"order" by force or domination etc.). There is probably a folks >concept based on the "perpetual repetition of the same" that might >be related to (natural) laws but leaves aside the possibility of >changing these "repetitions" (think about the concept of >"re-volution" in cosmology (Copernicus) and politics...). In other >words, what we when we observe order (I use the word observe in the >context of systems theory or second-order cybernetics, i.e., as >giving for granted that there is no "outside observer") is to >observe the difference order/chaos (or order/disorder) each time >from a specific perspective as the one we are discussing now taking >natural repetions as the leading framework. >kind regards >Rafael > >>Dear Stan, >>"Us" looking at the moon, is not a sufficient condition for the emergence of >>order. Woolfs may also look at the moon, but no order emerges; only the >>routine of howling can be expected to emerge. Order emerges only if our >>observational reports can be brought and interact in a discourse. Discursive >>knowledge constructs its own order. >>Best wishes, >> >>Loet >> >>________________________________ >> >>Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research >>(ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 >>6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; >>http://www.leydesdorff.net/ >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stanley Salthe >>>Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 4:33 AM >>>To: [email protected] >>>Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions >>> >>>Reacting to the exchange below between Steven and Guy, my view is >>>that universal natural laws are known by us as a result of >>>observations made using machines (embodied logic) constructed by >>>us for the purpose. Laws are highly corroborated regularities so >>>discerned. Thus, they are orderly products of disciplined >>>observation. Their relation to 'primitive nature' is necessarily >>>a philosophical issue, that might be prefigured by noting the high >>>corroboration of the regular sequence day / night, which confronts >>>us naively, as well as, e.g., our own heartbeats. Here we are >>>confronted by predictable sequences. The relation of such as >>>these to logical procedures confronted me when I learned that I >>>could correct an occasional irregular heartbeat merely by counting >>>the beats. Talk about constructing regularity using >>>logico-technical procedures! Counting is a discipline of >>>observation that can mediate regularity (= order). Perhaps >>>heartbeats are too close to us, and the day / night alternation >>>might be a better example of order in 'primitive nature'. We >>>might however, note that we know this sequence only because we >>>live long enough to experience it, which, say, an ephemeral insect >>>would not be able to appreciate. Then too, when 'we' looked at >>>the earth from the moon, and became convinced of its spinning >>>roundness in relation to the sun, the stark impression of the >>>order of day / night became somewhat attenuated. I feel forced to >>>maintain my stance that order is a creation of observation. This >>>is where the issue of order contacts the question of information. >>> >>>STAN >>> >>> >>> >>>>Hi Steven, >>>> >>>>I appreciate the distinction you draw between structural >>>order and process >>> >>>>order. At least I think this is another way of describing >>>your distinction. >>> >>>>I had structural order in mind, as you correctly inferred. With this >>>>restriction, I would embrace the paragraph Stan subsequently posted >>>>answering the question "what is order?". >>>> >>>>If I understand you correctly, we may disagree about the ontology of >>>>structural order. I think structural order (e.g., patterns, >>>gradients) is >>> >>>>objectively detectable (measurable), and that this is the >>>foundation of >>> >>>>empirical science. The limited lens of perception (i.e., limited by >>>>modalities of sensation) tends to be biased and distorting >>>to some degree. >>> >>>>Technology has greatly extended our (human) perceptive >>>range, accuracy and >>> >>>>precision. Science has improved our ability to interpret >>>the perceived >>> >>>>data. All of this leaves us far from perfection, but I >>>think we are also >>> >>>>far better at characterizing natural order than you seem to >>>believe. You >>> >>>>seem to be arguing that anything we think we have learned >>>beyond the raw >>> >>>>data (0's and 1's) is just fantasy. Is that a fair approximation? >>>> >>>>I do think that structural order is ultimately a consequence >>>of universal >>> >>>>natural laws, so maybe our views are not as opposed as they seem. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>>Guy >>>> >>>> >>>>on 5/23/08 10:32 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith at >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>>>> Dear Guy, >>>>> >>>>> Let us get the first question out of the way. What, >>>exactly, do you >>> >>>>> mean by orderly? As you use it here you appear to mean there is >>>>> manifest order and that changes to become another >>>manifest order. This >>> >>>>> is not what I take the question "Is nature orderly?" to address. >>>>> >>>>> Is there order at all? What, exactly, is the ontological >>>status of an >>> >>>>> ordered state? Is order merely the product of >>>apprehension (perception)? >>> >>>>> For me, it is the case that perceived order is the product of >>>>> apprehension alone; by which I mean things like ordinal >>>and cardinal >>> >>>>> numbers have no ontological status beyond their >>>apprehension (0 and 1 >>> >>>>> being the only numbers with an ontological status beyond >>>apprehension). >>> >>>>> However, the above does not answer the question "Is >>>nature orderly?" >>> >>>>> This question asks that we look beyond apprehension. Is >>>the perceived >>> >>>>> order the product of an intrinsic order? Here I look for >>>an ontology >>> >>>>> from primitive nature. In my case I will argue that >>>natural laws are >>> >>>> > universal and that these address the question at hand. Nature is >>>> >>>>> orderly if and only if natural laws are universal and derive as a >>>>> consequence of primitive nature. >>>>> >>>>> The implication of there being no orderliness, by this >>>definition, is >>> >>>>> that natural laws are not universal and there is no >>>primitive nature >>> >>>>> from which to derive them. >>>>> >>>>> With respect, >>>>> Steven >>>>> >>>>> On May 23, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Guy A Hoelzer wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Greetings all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I, too, like the seed of this new discussion; although I >>>recommend >>> >>>>>> slight modifications of the question. Frankly, I think it is >>>>>> undeniable that there is a degree of orderliness, and a degree of >>>>>> disorder, in Nature. I also think we would all agree that Nature >>>>>> constantly constructs new order, even as it actively deconstructs >>>>>> other instances of orderliness. The timely questions in my mind >>>>>> include: >>>>>> >>>>>> To what degree is Nature orderly and how does this degree change >>>>>> over time? >>>>>> >>>>>> How can we best describe the dynamical turnover of order/disorder >>>>>> within Nature at large? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Guy Hoelzer >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> fis mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>fis mailing list >>>>[email protected] >>>>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis >>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>fis mailing list >>>[email protected] >>>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis >>> >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>fis mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis >> > > >-- >Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro >Hochschule der Medien (HdM) - Stuttgart Media University, Wolframstr. 32 >70191 Stuttgart, Germany >Private: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany >E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Voice Stuttgart: + 49 - 711 - 25706 - 182 >Voice private: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21) >Homepage: www.capurro.de >Homepage ICIE: http://icie.zkm.de >Homepage IRIE: http://www.i-r-i-e.net >Information Ethics Senior Fellow, 2007-2008; 2009-2010, Center for >Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, >UW-Milwaukee, USA _______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
